Senior British ministers are said to be urging Theresa May to seek help from her arch rival -- socialist Jeremy Corbyn -- if Parliament kills her Brexit deal in a crunch vote next week.

A group of mainly pro-European ministers want May to invite the opposition Labour party leader to meet her for negotiations in the hope of agreeing a joint plan, according to people familiar with the matter.

May will ask Parliament to approve the divorce terms she’s negotiated with the European Union on Jan. 15. The problem she faces is that her Conservative party has no overall majority in the House of Commons and scores of her own members hate the deal she’s struck with the EU and have vowed to oppose it.

Corbyn has already said that a new election is what he wants, so it gives you an idea of how desperate the Tories are.

Parliament is going to vote on her Brexit deal Tuesday.
It's extremely unlikely to pass, given that May lost two dramatic parliamentary votes in as many days.
May has no Plan B.

With May's government circling the drain, the establishment has loads of advice for Corbyn.

The poll published on the Conservative Home website on Tuesday showed that some 45 percent of the Conservative Party’s grassroots think that Corbyn will take the keys to No. 10 as part of a coalition government after the next general election.

The poll showed that the number of Tories who think their party will remain in power has decreased from the 73 percent recorded last month to 55 percent. That means a huge fall in the popularity of the current Conservative-led government of Prime Minister Theresa May.

When your own voters have given up...
Three years of non-stop smears have not diminished Corbyn because he's an authentic socialist, and the people are ready for socialism.

You don't refuse to do your job just because you don't like what you're told to do, and you don't demand do-overs until you get the vote you want, Theresa May. And they say Trump is a temper tantrum throwing baby.
(disclaimer) I was against the EU from the 70s. It took 40 years for people to realize that I was right, but we'd better hope that Jeremy Corbin swallows his socialist 1 world idealism and realize that the British people are fed up with globalism and just might not tell the difference. Learn from Hollande - don't do what the capitalists want.

You don't refuse to do your job just because you don't like what you're told to do, and you don't demand do-overs until you get the vote you want, Theresa May. And they say Trump is a temper tantrum throwing baby.
(disclaimer) I was against the EU from the 70s. It took 40 years for people to realize that I was right, but we'd better hope that Jeremy Corbin swallows his socialist 1 world idealism and realize that the British people are fed up with globalism and just might not tell the difference. Learn from Hollande - don't do what the capitalists want.

up

13 users have voted.

—

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, CIA Director (first staff meeting, 1981)

@ggersh
To paraphrase Mark Blyth, "the EU's goal was to have the workers in Romania have the same quality of life as the workers in England. Now that can be by paying Romanians more or paying the English less. Which do you think the western European ruling class is choosing?"

To explain why we MUST invade England to restore national sovereignty after they are forced to leave Europe by ignorant, hateful British who clearly are not REAL English people, just foreign terrorists, no wait, they are to be respected... it's the native British who are the problem because... they invaded first. Therefore, they totally need to give the land back to the original inhabitants...

Look, you can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good here. Europe and the Euro are GOOD, and if you disagree you're bad, therefore everything else people say about you is true.

/snark

I ran out of weird double speak that covered all angles of the issue to support the Establishment properly.

@detroitmechworks
that we need to liberate the UK. Restore their gun rights and teach them all how to speak English.

To explain why we MUST invade England to restore national sovereignty after they are forced to leave Europe by ignorant, hateful British who clearly are not REAL English people, just foreign terrorists, no wait, they are to be respected... it's the native British who are the problem because... they invaded first. Therefore, they totally need to give the land back to the original inhabitants...

Look, you can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good here. Europe and the Euro are GOOD, and if you disagree you're bad, therefore everything else people say about you is true.

/snark

I ran out of weird double speak that covered all angles of the issue to support the Establishment properly.

“Do not let your fire go out, spark by irreplaceable spark....Do not let the hero in your soul perish in lonely frustration for the life you deserved and have never been able to reach. The world you desire can be won. It exists.” ― Ayn Rand

@UntimelyRippd
given the title, you might think it was an entire essay devoted to analyzing Corbin's narcissism. to the contrary, the essay is just a review of the previous day's activities in the House of Commons, which included, during "PMQs", some salutatory remarks regarding a deceased member.

May offered a few respectful words. The Lib Dems were represented by the weirdly pompous Sir Edward Davey whose knighthood has swollen his head without affecting the capacity of his brain. At least his tribute seemed genuinely heartfelt. The most sincere effort came from Jeremy Corbyn. ‘He was elected at the same time as me, in 1983,’ said Corbyn, recalling his arrival in parliament as if it were the highlight of Lord Ashdown’s career. ‘He and I spent a lot of evenings voting against what the Thatcher Tory government [sic] was doing at the time.’

A fascinating glimpse into Corbyn’s narcissus complex.

Yes -- the writer tosses out an off-hand one-liner about narcissism (the writer having already stated that Corbyn's remarks were the most sincere, being an actual personal reminiscence of the deceased), and the editor chooses an inflammatory anti-Corbyn headline, and commissions an accompanying satirical artwork to head the piece, depicting Corbyn as a gigantic en-haloed saint, scowling while holding a condescending hand down to a couple of desperate proles.

Going beyond this trivial moment during Question Time, the writer says this:

In the debate, he accused May of using no deal to ‘blackmail MPs’ into supporting her ‘hopelessly unpopular’ withdrawal agreement. He recalled her pre-Christmas promise to secure ‘written assurances’ from Brussels: ‘Will the changes she’s looking for be made legally binding in the Withdrawal Agreement?’

May: ‘Can I say to the Right Honourable Gentlemen, we, … as I have said earlier in my remarks, and I have said previously, there are three elements that we are looking at …’

She clodded and clumped her way over many yards of this piffle until she reached a non-conclusion.

‘… we will be looking to ensure that we can provide the assurance that this House needs in relation to the question that has been at the forefront of members’ minds.’

Corbyn: I didn’t hear the words ‘legal changes to the document’.

Nor did anyone. He’d nailed her.

In other words, of the two sections of the report that mention Corbyn, one involving a bit of trivial decorum-keeping, the second involving the actual fate of the nation, in which Corbyn surgically humiliates the PM, the editor chooses to headline and misrepresent the trivial so as to make the casual reader (the one who doesn't ever read the full article) think there has been some dreadful revelation of Corbyn's fundamentally narcissistic nature.

‘… we will be looking to ensure that we can provide the assurance that this House needs in relation to the question that has been at the forefront of members’ minds.’

That sounds like something Nancy Pelosi would say.

#7
given the title, you might think it was an entire essay devoted to analyzing Corbin's narcissism. to the contrary, the essay is just a review of the previous day's activities in the House of Commons, which included, during "PMQs", some salutatory remarks regarding a deceased member.

May offered a few respectful words. The Lib Dems were represented by the weirdly pompous Sir Edward Davey whose knighthood has swollen his head without affecting the capacity of his brain. At least his tribute seemed genuinely heartfelt. The most sincere effort came from Jeremy Corbyn. ‘He was elected at the same time as me, in 1983,’ said Corbyn, recalling his arrival in parliament as if it were the highlight of Lord Ashdown’s career. ‘He and I spent a lot of evenings voting against what the Thatcher Tory government [sic] was doing at the time.’

A fascinating glimpse into Corbyn’s narcissus complex.

Yes -- the writer tosses out an off-hand one-liner about narcissism (the writer having already stated that Corbyn's remarks were the most sincere, being an actual personal reminiscence of the deceased), and the editor chooses an inflammatory anti-Corbyn headline, and commissions an accompanying satirical artwork to head the piece, depicting Corbyn as a gigantic en-haloed saint, scowling while holding a condescending hand down to a couple of desperate proles.

Going beyond this trivial moment during Question Time, the writer says this:

In the debate, he accused May of using no deal to ‘blackmail MPs’ into supporting her ‘hopelessly unpopular’ withdrawal agreement. He recalled her pre-Christmas promise to secure ‘written assurances’ from Brussels: ‘Will the changes she’s looking for be made legally binding in the Withdrawal Agreement?’

May: ‘Can I say to the Right Honourable Gentlemen, we, … as I have said earlier in my remarks, and I have said previously, there are three elements that we are looking at …’

She clodded and clumped her way over many yards of this piffle until she reached a non-conclusion.

‘… we will be looking to ensure that we can provide the assurance that this House needs in relation to the question that has been at the forefront of members’ minds.’

Corbyn: I didn’t hear the words ‘legal changes to the document’.

Nor did anyone. He’d nailed her.

In other words, of the two sections of the report that mention Corbyn, one involving a bit of trivial decorum-keeping, the second involving the actual fate of the nation, in which Corbyn surgically humiliates the PM, the editor chooses to headline and misrepresent the trivial so as to make the casual reader (the one who doesn't ever read the full article) think there has been some dreadful revelation of Corbyn's fundamentally narcissistic nature.

Pure propaganda.

up

6 users have voted.

—

"Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep ... Don't go back to sleep." ~Rumi

@UntimelyRippd
Propaganda is and how it comes to pass and poison people's minds.

Evil stuff.

Malicious editors carrying water for their oligarch masters.

#7
given the title, you might think it was an entire essay devoted to analyzing Corbin's narcissism. to the contrary, the essay is just a review of the previous day's activities in the House of Commons, which included, during "PMQs", some salutatory remarks regarding a deceased member.

May offered a few respectful words. The Lib Dems were represented by the weirdly pompous Sir Edward Davey whose knighthood has swollen his head without affecting the capacity of his brain. At least his tribute seemed genuinely heartfelt. The most sincere effort came from Jeremy Corbyn. ‘He was elected at the same time as me, in 1983,’ said Corbyn, recalling his arrival in parliament as if it were the highlight of Lord Ashdown’s career. ‘He and I spent a lot of evenings voting against what the Thatcher Tory government [sic] was doing at the time.’

A fascinating glimpse into Corbyn’s narcissus complex.

Yes -- the writer tosses out an off-hand one-liner about narcissism (the writer having already stated that Corbyn's remarks were the most sincere, being an actual personal reminiscence of the deceased), and the editor chooses an inflammatory anti-Corbyn headline, and commissions an accompanying satirical artwork to head the piece, depicting Corbyn as a gigantic en-haloed saint, scowling while holding a condescending hand down to a couple of desperate proles.

Going beyond this trivial moment during Question Time, the writer says this:

In the debate, he accused May of using no deal to ‘blackmail MPs’ into supporting her ‘hopelessly unpopular’ withdrawal agreement. He recalled her pre-Christmas promise to secure ‘written assurances’ from Brussels: ‘Will the changes she’s looking for be made legally binding in the Withdrawal Agreement?’

May: ‘Can I say to the Right Honourable Gentlemen, we, … as I have said earlier in my remarks, and I have said previously, there are three elements that we are looking at …’

She clodded and clumped her way over many yards of this piffle until she reached a non-conclusion.

‘… we will be looking to ensure that we can provide the assurance that this House needs in relation to the question that has been at the forefront of members’ minds.’

Corbyn: I didn’t hear the words ‘legal changes to the document’.

Nor did anyone. He’d nailed her.

In other words, of the two sections of the report that mention Corbyn, one involving a bit of trivial decorum-keeping, the second involving the actual fate of the nation, in which Corbyn surgically humiliates the PM, the editor chooses to headline and misrepresent the trivial so as to make the casual reader (the one who doesn't ever read the full article) think there has been some dreadful revelation of Corbyn's fundamentally narcissistic nature.

My one question was sociological as well as historical. These aren't states like what we have here. These are nations with separate cultures, languages, and histories. They fought bloody wars against each other. The closest war equivalent we have is the Civil War. Not even close when one thinks about it. Rec'd!!

up

6 users have voted.

—

• Gosh, I hope preventing the grandkids from frying when they go out to play in the sun doesn’t cost a lot of money!
--Naked Capitalism on the GND

The Executive is losing control over Parliament. MP's of various parties/factions are coming up with various solutions, regardless of May and her 'deal'. The Tories split over the Corn Laws under Sir Robert Peel in the 19th C. They might well split over this.

Young Germans today should hot be burdened with their grandparents' 1940s debts. But, equally, young Greeks should not be robbed of a future because Berlin is refusing Greece an inescapable debt restructure. Mutual debt forgiveness now! On BBC Radio 4 https://t.co/D1xepmzxig